News
Experts’ dismissal of Tesla’s Full Self Driving push proves Elon Musk is still not taken seriously
Despite delays, Elon Musk remains optimistic that Tesla’s efforts to achieve Full Self Driving will bear fruit soon. This was highlighted in a statement during his appearance at the recently held 2020 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in China, where he noted that Tesla is closing in on “Level 5” functionalities. Experts in the field of automation beg to differ.
In a recent statement to Automotive News, Sam Abuelsamid, principal analyst at Guidehouse Insights (formerly Navigant Research) and Missy Cummings, director of the Humans and Autonomy Laboratory at Duke University, openly dismissed Tesla’s efforts to achieve full self driving. In a scathing rebuke, Abuelsamid described Musk’s targets as absurd. He also expressed his pessimism about Tesla’s approach to automation, which focuses on vision and artificial intelligence.
“The cars they are building will never be Level 5, period. It’s nonsense. He needs to shut up until he can deliver something. The premise of making highly automated systems on cameras alone is fundamentally flawed. Their approach to software doing end-to-end AI systems is almost certainly not going to work. I don’t believe it can work. AI is too brittle,” he said.
It should be noted that Abuelsamid recently published a study ranking companies that are currently pursuing autonomy. Similar to studies conducted by Guidehouse Insights when it was still operating as Navigant Research, Abuelsamid ranked Tesla dead last, even behind startups like Navya, which have limited real world driving data.
Abuelsamid’s sentiments were echoed by Missy Cummings, who also argued that there is no way that Tesla could achieve Level 5 autonomy with its vehicles. In a statement to KCBS Radio, Cummings noted that Elon Musk likely does not understand what Level 5 Automation really is. This is an interesting comment from the director of the Humans and Autonomy Laboratory at Duke University, considering that Waymo CEO John Krafcik noted last year that ultimately, “Level 5 is a bit of a myth.”
“There is no way, shape, or form the car is going to be Level 5. He doesn’t really understand what Level 5 is. I think what he means is Level 4, and he’s not even going to get Level 4. The perception systems don’t work well in weather conditions, with long shadows. We know the Tesla perception system, and the news is it’s a really bad system,” she remarked.
While there is some merit in criticizing the Tesla CEO for missing his targets with regards to the release of the electric car maker’s full self driving system, it seems far too careless to simply dismiss all the work that Tesla has accomplished over the years either. The company, after all, is gathering real world driving data at an unprecedented scale that’s unrivaled by companies like Waymo, and that matters much when it comes to training neural networks, as emphasized by ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood. Tesla’s vision based approach to autonomy has also gained support from notable names such as George Hotz, who believes that Tesla would eventually become the Apple of self driving cars.
It is unfortunate, but based on the dismissive and almost aggressive rebuke of Tesla’s efforts from the experts tapped by Automotive News, it appears there is still a general tendency to completely dismiss Elon Musk and his initiatives. Interestingly enough, these statements are pretty familiar to those who have followed the SpaceX and Tesla story over the years. It may be difficult to recall at this point, but there was a time when it was believed that landing the Falcon 9 first stage on land and an autonomous barge on the sea is impossible. There was also a time when the Model X was considered unbuildable.
Fortunately, Tesla and its CEO are a stubborn bunch, and it takes a lot more than skepticism to discourage the company. This is especially notable considering that Tesla is currently looking to roll out a massive rewrite of its Autopilot suite, which should take the company even closer to full self driving. Perhaps this time around, Elon Musk’s statements about Level 5 Autonomy may actually be pretty accurate, at least in terms of its features and timeframe.
“I’m extremely confident that level five or essentially complete autonomy will happen, and I think, will happen very quickly,” said Musk, answering another question. I think at Tesla, I feel like we are very close to level five autonomy. I think—I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for level five autonomy complete this year,” Musk said at the 2020 WAIC.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
